get_test_result_collection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that relations can be included, but does not disclose pagination defaults, rate limits, or behavior for large result sets. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but additional behavioral context is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the second ('Get all test results' vs 'Retrieve all test results'). Still, it's efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (nested query object, many filter fields) and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain return format or pagination behavior, but it does not. It covers the main capabilities (filter, sort, paginate, relations) but leaves gaps regarding the structure of returned data and default limits. It's adequate but incomplete for a collection tool with rich filtering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, yet the nested schema actually contains descriptions for most parameters (page, limit, order, filter fields, etc.). The top-level parameter count is 1 (query), but it's a deeply nested object. The description only mentions 'custom filters, sorting, and pagination' and 'relations parameter' without adding syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. Given the low coverage metric, the description should compensate more, so a 2 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: retrieving all test results from a project. It's distinguishable from sibling get_test_result (singular), but does not explicitly differentiate from other collection tools like get_test_case_test_results or get_test_run_test_results, which also return test results scoped differently.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions filtering, sorting, pagination, and relations, which implies when to use this broad collection tool, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the scoped alternatives (e.g., get_test_run_test_results). It lacks exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.